From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FD1C388F7 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:49:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7ED2225E for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:49:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="c28rgGd/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1416351AbgJYNtK (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:49:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41976 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1414565AbgJYNtJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:49:09 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x443.google.com (mail-pf1-x443.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::443]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D91CC0613CE for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x443.google.com with SMTP id c20so4640293pfr.8 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=iQeyDJTepvv1ZVela5c2lXY0xngXS7+uoGwG9ZqbDsg=; b=c28rgGd/KMcX8EboaWSFIKFdJMyd5VxX4VPXC7BZWhIDrxIAqinrrmR8dSoBku4hwH Oe2neIjBPMa/FaaT0RUTpj5ZgQKmRxUml8AqIBiwSyEoAPnkYneJ2zMwNIEpnGCL13ba +jqzfUCmI7mBdTa4s34wf/0uCSFGcH5Ij5jK+Oi56fD6kLlB7Nt8RUB689HIkOgf6hUO L7qlxGzyCm8VntxpivlpueJ7G2M3Gvylguxr5OsN4mTbg+Uld54PoLLUwZwvIR8IXXgs zCCca8haE5Gbnep3EJAISWpDLdxH+OK7wXzsZ5739G1RzJpwowpTW5V7PxnaefpBQgMV PI+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=iQeyDJTepvv1ZVela5c2lXY0xngXS7+uoGwG9ZqbDsg=; b=Sh7BjxDi0co4sE7GqYkmbQ8G+lBCANAd9vJTFUMVOmoVj3iRJPkkhWtQWWVnAkGwiq 3/nZDYC4F6RVAzK7DOM1pXDaPIOytX8oJY3mBsQ+Z4TaAVb+MRw/cue4ELFYae6cWtKd hHiPujoMNrM2G/pNEqyfqfBUP4/KwSVEprYxhHpsY6+nPlixMxteoN/oY9ga7qVxZM+d o8+XvYAi+b7D/rKsUIjKKaAIjmiuXMAfIcKUaI91Hy/8MAOjROWm2Nfnn9HE2SgLWPNK JCGpvHJG22JEnZSp0LqACv7wDX4VSk6hp8u8nuO9KuJrEcV7W88UHz3Xs8D6opPvPsZL VlzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HdEsa6SY8gvm+VfYGlHZPKbqIPPc8lb/zC2yMFbpND/S0FXx2 7ahkD/tzxsEf4ahnEJEpnPQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9nsOIlUguNcx2ExYpuPIwovDztUsVvbN+QENuV5L+8QHlwzW8oO6AG+tLCZ45CH3SUmAmKw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:5c5e:: with SMTP id n30mr10139623pgm.54.1603633747623; Sun, 25 Oct 2020 06:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2402:800:63a8:a664:a141:4d28:22d6:5590]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16sm9092572pfp.195.2020.10.25.06.49.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 25 Oct 2020 06:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2020 20:49:05 +0700 From: =?utf-8?B?xJBvw6BuIFRy4bqnbiBDw7RuZw==?= Danh To: Elijah Newren Cc: Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] t/: new helper for tests that pass with ort but fail with recursive Message-ID: <20201025134905.GB15823@danh.dev> References: <20201024104910.GA15823@danh.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 2020-10-24 09:53:18-0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 3:49 AM Đoàn Trần Công Danh > wrote: > > > > On 2020-10-23 16:01:16+0000, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: > > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm () { > > > + status_for_recursive=$1 > > > + shift > > > + status_for_ort=$1 > > > + shift > > > + > > > + if test "$GIT_TEST_MERGE_ALGORITHM" = ort > > > + then > > > + test_expect_${status_for_ort} "$@" > > > + else > > > + test_expect_${status_for_recursive} "$@" > > > -test_expect_failure 'check symlink modify/modify' ' > > > +test_expect_merge_algorithm failure success 'check symlink modify/modify' ' > > > > I find this series of "failure success" hard to decode without > > understanding what it would be, then I need to keep rememberring which > > status is corresponding with with algorithm. > > > > Perhaps this patch is a bit easier to read. This is largely based on > > your patch. (I haven't read other patches, yet). > > > > What do you think? > > It is easier to read and I think something along these lines would > make a lot of sense if this weren't a transient change (the idea is to > eventually drop the recursive backend in favor of ort, and then these > can all switch to just using test_expect_success). Maybe it still > makes sense to make further changes here anyway, but if we do go this > route, there are 1-2 things we can/should change: > > First, while a lot of my contributions aren't that important, and the Mine aren't that important, either > new test_expect_* function certainly falls in that category, one of > the driving goals behind a new merge algorithm was fixing up edge and > corner cases that were just too problematic in the recursive backend. > Thus, the patch where I get to flip the test expectation is one that I > care about more than most out of the (I'm guessing on this number) Make sense. > 100+ patches that will be part of this new merge algorithm. Having > you take over ownership of that patch thus isn't right; we should > instead keep my original patch and apply your suggested changes on top > (or have a patch from you introducing a new function first, and then > have a patch from me using it to flip test expectations on top). You can take back the ownership, the patch was based on yours, anyway. I wrote like that since I need to rewrite part of the message to match with my changes ;) No need to generate extra noise of additional patch. > Second, I think that lines like > test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure ... > read like a contradiction and are also confusing. I think it'd be > better if it read something like > test_expect_merge recursive=failure ort=success ... > or something along those lines. When I wrote the patch, I was expecting something like test_expect_merge_success recursive=failure,other=failure ... in order to merge all algorithm into single parameters. How about something like: test_expect_merge_success exception=recursive,other ... Not that we have "other" algorithm to begin with. Thanks, -- Danh